Determinism

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Determinism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Jul 21, 2019 9:52 pm

WendyDarling wrote:Those actions are to accrue view counts while playing the clever card.
I hadn't thought of that, but I think I hadn't thought of it because I am incredulous. Do you really think he gets pleasure out of view counts?
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby WendyDarling » Sun Jul 21, 2019 9:55 pm

Of course, that the reason KT's Satyr keeps biggie in the dungeon where nobody can see his nonsense.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7301
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Determinism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Jul 21, 2019 9:59 pm

WendyDarling wrote:Of course, that the reason KT's Satyr keeps biggie in the dungeon where nobody can see his nonsense.
He decided to put him in the dungeon because he thinks biggie is posting for views? Did he say that somewhere? How do you know this? Not saying your wrong, but I would have thought he would do that because he found his posts wanting in some way, not because of what he thinks the motivation for the posts is.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby WendyDarling » Sun Jul 21, 2019 10:03 pm

It's for both reasons, manipulative nonsense posts and count seeking. At KT, Satyr has commented on biggie's need for attention and yes, the view counts. Go to KT and ask Satyr if you doubt me. Has biggie ever posted in the rant house where no one would read his stuff? I can't recall ever seeing him post there, but I'm going to stop my personal commentary about biggie and stop derailing this thread.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7301
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Determinism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Jul 21, 2019 10:45 pm

WendyDarling wrote:It's for both reasons, manipulative nonsense posts and count seeking. At KT, Satyr has commented on biggie's need for attention and yes, the view counts. Go to KT and ask Satyr if you doubt me. Has biggie ever posted in the rant house where no one would read his stuff? I can't recall ever seeing him post there, but I'm going to stop my personal commentary about biggie and stop derailing this thread.
Need for attention I tend to agree with, though that's a bit different from post views. If people just viewed his posts but did not respond, I think he would stop posting outside his two or three collection threads.

I think argument about the Rant House is an odd one. What reason is there for anyone to post in the rant threads if they don't want anyone to read their posts. I mean, they could just type it into a word document.

You may be right about the view count, but it seems unlikely to me. Attention, or really a dynamic that includes attention and the failure to convince him and solve his problems, sure.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby WendyDarling » Mon Jul 22, 2019 12:09 am

The rant house is like KT's dungeon, both are only visible to members. But Biggie wants non-member views to elicit a high view count for him to continue posting to continue his game. His collection threads have high view counts which feed his ego. He has tried to get Satyr to publish all his KT threads in the KT Agora numerous times to no avail (cuz Satyr don't play). By not allowing all of his posts to be seen by non-member views, he is not interested in the content material of the rant house for it doesn't fuel his ego in represented high view counts.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7301
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jul 22, 2019 2:47 am

WendyDarling wrote:Those actions are to accrue view counts while playing the clever card.


Okay, let's assume that this is true. Ought we then to assume that I choose to do this of my own free will?

Ought we, in turn, to assume that you possess the autonomy necessary to pass judgment on this assumption that you make about me?

Or ought I to assume this is something that you just know to be true? In other words, ought I to assume that you have no sophisticated empirical evidence to back up this?

And, just out of curiosity, how, assuming some measure of free will on your part, am I playing the "clever card" here?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31555
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby WendyDarling » Mon Jul 22, 2019 2:53 am

Satyr has your number which is a fact in action. I really do not wish to waste anymore time on the subject of your antics.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7301
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jul 22, 2019 3:03 am

surreptitious75 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
surreptitious75 wrote:
It is doomed to failure as there is no such explanation as each individual has to decide for themselves what is true to them

Assuming some measure of human autonomy how do you go about demonstrating that it is doomed to failure ? Instead you merely assert it to be so
embodying what I construe to be the objectivist frame of mind . You have come to accept certain assumptions / premises about the human condition

Stating an obvious truth is not an assertion - namely that you cannot apply an objective metric to the human condition
Because there are no objectively true answers to the question of our existence or of how we should live our lives
If you disagree then say what are the objectively true answers to them - ones that can actually be demonstrated


So, what do you do? You assert anew that your previous assertion is an obvious truth. Even though you still have no capacity to explain what that means given all that you can't possibly know about the human condition in the context of all there is going back to however it all came to be in the first place.

As for myself, my point could not be clearer: "I" have no capacity to provide objective answers to questions like these.

Instead, I assume that the answers that anyone gives to these questions [or answers revolving around conflicted value judgments] are rooted subjectively in the fact that day in and day out we encounter new experiences, new relationships and access to new information/knowledge/ideas etc., that we can never be sure won't change our minds.

"I" here as an "existential contraption" that objectivists will do almost anything to avoid confronting.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31555
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jul 22, 2019 3:14 am

WendyDarling wrote:Satyr has your number which is a fact in action. I really do not wish to waste anymore time on the subject of your antics.


First, he kicked me out of the agora, then he abandoned our exchange in the dungeon.

Why? Well, I can only hazard a guess: that I was making a fool out of him?!

Compelled or otherwise.

Now, compelled or otherwise, I am all for management here allowing him to participate on this thread. No huffing and puffing, no ad homs, no personal attacks.

He can even bring Lyssa back.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31555
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby promethean75 » Mon Jul 22, 2019 11:52 am

"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" - anonymous entry level logical positivist
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1073
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby phyllo » Mon Jul 22, 2019 12:34 pm

So what's the problem?
The problem of course is that my current thinking is not compelled by nature and that in fact we do have some measure of autonomy in this exchange.

Clearly, if my thinking and your thinking and his thinking are in fact compelled by nature then so is your reaction to my reaction to his reaction to me.

I become a moron only because he was not able to not call me one.
That's your answer??
I am asking you because it gives me yet another opportunity to note how you will continue to avoid answering it.
I explicitly stated that I didn't want to change to another context. I wanted to deal with Mary's abortion and come to at least one conclusion about it. You can't even respect that.

The very next post you switch to Trump.

Yeah, I'm not going to talk about it.
And "free" is meant to suggest that, in a determined world, it reflects only the psychological illusion of freedom. Whereas free is meant to convey an actual freedom embodied in the brains of matter that evolved into life that evolved into "I".
I don't know how "the psychological illusion of freedom" works in practical terms. Nor do I know how "an actual freedom embodied in brains of matter" works in practical terms. You seem to think that they are very different.

They seem functionally equivalent - people presented with choices making decisions.
Again, we'll need an actual context in which to explore the meaning of those words more descriptively.
We already had a context : Mary's abortion. My reaction is to describe the freedom she has in the situation (when we are discussing freedom).

For some reason, that's the wrong reaction.
phyllo wrote:
For example : I love this car. I think this car is ugly. I think this car is underpowered. Versus. This car is red. It seats 5. It accelerates to 60mph in 2.5 seconds.

Is that it? You want the subjective reaction to a context?


Note to others:

Get back to me on this, please. What really, really important point is it meant to convey?
That's me presenting you with an example in order to get some feedback from you because I have no idea what you expect a reaction to be.

(And I don't get any feedback. :( )

But: Was any of this embodied in autonomous beings? Or are all Marys and all abortions in all contexts merely the embodiment of nature's mechanical laws.
I'm a robot moving around on this planet. I'm autonomous because I make my own decisions based on sensory input. I would not be autonomous if someone was making those decisions for me though a radio or wired connection.

That's what autonomous means both in a free-will universe and a determined universe.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11235
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Determinism

Postby phyllo » Mon Jul 22, 2019 1:12 pm

I'm looking for the Enchanted Castle and I come to a crossroad. I can go left, straight, right or I can go back the way I came. (I could also wait, in case someone who knows the way comes along to help me. I could go off the path, cross-country.)

How does "the psychological illusion of freedom" work in this case?

How does "an actual freedom embodied in brains of matter" work in this case?

How are they different from picking a path based on my understanding of the current situation?

I'm free to take some action. :character-yoshi:
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11235
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jul 22, 2019 6:12 pm

WendyDarling wrote: Biggie, you are unwilling to balance your inner subjective reality with the greater outer objective reality so you are always wrong in every example and context you try to disagree about.


Okay, note for us how you are willing to balance your own inner subjectivity with the greater outer objectivity.

How is it applicable to the behaviors that you choose? Cite a context.

As for, "you are always wrong in every example and context you try to disagree about", note in turn how this is not applicable to you.

Well, after first explaining to us what it actually means for all practical purposes.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31555
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jul 22, 2019 6:30 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
WendyDarling wrote:Of course, that the reason KT's Satyr keeps biggie in the dungeon where nobody can see his nonsense.
He decided to put him in the dungeon because he thinks biggie is posting for views? Did he say that somewhere? How do you know this? Not saying your wrong, but I would have thought he would do that because he found his posts wanting in some way, not because of what he thinks the motivation for the posts is.


Note to others:

They are both missing the point of the thread. And the point of the thread is to explore the extent to which nature may well have compelled them to miss the point. Given that their minds are but more matter necessarily in sync with the laws of nature.

And then the extent to which they believe that their own point of view here in an autonomous universe reflects that which all rational men and women are obligated to think.

The objectivist mind.

Finally, given whatever it is they believe, to what degree are they able to demonstrate using an actual collection of evidence and data that what they believe is in fact true?

Me, I'm the first to admit that my own ideas here are just the embodiment of "I" as an existential contraption ever and always subject to reevaluation given new experiences, new relationships and encounters with new information and knowledge.

You know, in a world "bursting at the seams with contingency chance and change."
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31555
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jul 22, 2019 7:14 pm

WendyDarling wrote:Satyr has your number which is a fact in action. I really do not wish to waste anymore time on the subject of your antics.


What I think is this: that it's entirely possible the laws of nature compelled you to think this...and then to post it.

But it's also entirely possible that in a universe that does allow for some measure of human autonomy, you think this is true merely because you are able to believe it is true.

You don't have to actually demonstrate in a more substantive manner how and why he has my number. You simply assert it to be true.

And, given an autonomous universe, I think it is not a waste of your time that prompts you to avoid my antics. Or prompts you to avoid participating in this thread in a more substantive manner.

Instead, I think it's that, as with Satyr, when the discussion actually does revolve around substance, you, as with him, are easily made to look foolish.

And that is because, in my own opinion, you are both objectivists. You are both able to convince yourself that all others are obligated to think like you do. About determinism, about Trump, about immigrants. About, well, everything. Why? Because, psychologically, it is more important that you believe [fiercely, dogmatically] what you do rather than whatever it happens to be that you do believe.

Look for your own rendition of "I" here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

On the other hand, I'm always willing to acknowledge myself that, quite possibly, 1] nature compels me to note this in turn or 2] if not, it is but another subjective assessment rooted largely in dasein.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31555
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby WendyDarling » Mon Jul 22, 2019 10:49 pm

And that is because, in my own opinion, you are both objectivists. You are both able to convince yourself that all others are obligated to think like you do. About determinism, about Trump, about immigrants. About, well, everything. Why? Because, psychologically, it is more important that you believe [fiercely, dogmatically] what you do rather than whatever it happens to be that you do believe.

:lol:
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7301
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jul 22, 2019 11:10 pm

WendyDarling wrote:
And that is because, in my own opinion, you are both objectivists. You are both able to convince yourself that all others are obligated to think like you do. About determinism, about Trump, about immigrants. About, well, everything. Why? Because, psychologically, it is more important that you believe [fiercely, dogmatically] what you do rather than whatever it happens to be that you do believe.

:lol:


Note to others:

See what I reduce her and her ilk down to?

Why doesn't she at least make the attempt to respond intelligently to the point I raised? This is, after all, the philosophy board.

Well, I have my own suspicions of course. And, so, I'll leave it up to you, in turn, to make of it all what you wish.

And to think that in the past -- ephilosopher, ponderer's guild, yahoo groups, cafe philo etc. -- there were objectivists who were actually able to both stimulate and to challenge my own thinking.

And now look what I'm stuck with?

:lol:

See. I can use that too.

That and this one: :banana-linedance:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31555
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jul 23, 2019 8:16 pm

I am asking you because it gives me yet another opportunity to note how you will continue to avoid answering it.


phyllo wrote:I explicitly stated that I didn't want to change to another context. I wanted to deal with Mary's abortion and come to at least one conclusion about it. You can't even respect that.


And I posted above the conclusion that I have come to embody regarding it:

Over and over and over again, I note that in regard to Mary choosing an abortion or Trump choosing to attack The Squad or you and I choosing to do anything at all, I have taken a subjective/existential leap "here and now" to the argument/belief that nature compels all matter to unfold in accordance with its immutable laws.

In other words, all the way up to me typing these words and you reading them.

But: I have no capacity to demonstrate why and how others ought to think that way too.

My argument with the objectivists is that they assert certain things to be true. And that, if others refuse to toe their own dogmatic line -- to become "one of us" dittoheads -- they become the equivalent of morons.


So, sure, I'm curious regarding your own conclusion to date:

Now, your turn. How do you differentiate Trump being "free" to attack The Squad, from Trump being free to attack those women of color in Congress?

And how do you then actually demonstrate to us that you are either "free" or free to make this claim?


If you don't like the switch to Trump, choose any context that you wish.

And "free" is meant to suggest that, in a determined world, it reflects only the psychological illusion of freedom. Whereas free is meant to convey an actual freedom embodied in the brains of matter that evolved into life that evolved into "I".


phyllo wrote:I don't know how "the psychological illusion of freedom" works in practical terms. Nor do I know how "an actual freedom embodied in brains of matter" works in practical terms. You seem to think that they are very different.


But that is precisely my point! No one seems to know. At least not beyond all reasonable doubt. And yet some insist that their own subjective philosophical "assessment" of these relationships is such that, if others don't share it, they become Morons and Desperate Degenerates. Axiomatcially as it were.

It is of those folks that I request a demonstration. Provide us with an accumulation of hard evidence that their will is free. Instead we get serial assertions that they concoct out of a world of words in their heads.

Now, if they seem "functionally equivalent" to you, then note actual functions from your life in which you describe the choices that you make as being autonomous and not compelled by nature. How can you or I or anyone grasp this wholly? Given the reasons that I note above.

But: Was any of this embodied in autonomous beings? Or are all Marys and all abortions in all contexts merely the embodiment of nature's mechanical laws.


phyllo wrote:I'm a robot moving around on this planet. I'm autonomous because I make my own decisions based on sensory input. I would not be autonomous if someone was making those decisions for me though a radio or wired connection.

That's what autonomous means both in a free-will universe and a determined universe.


Yes, but you've got your own rendition of God. That allows you to put nature in perspective. You presume [I presume] that mindless matter evolving into living matter evolving into human brains evolving into "I" are not wholly the embodiment of the mechanical laws of nature. Somehow God intercedes to make you autonomous. And, in turn, I'm sure you've got your own rendition of the argument that squares an omnsicient God [if yours is] with human freedom.

But Satyr eschews God. He seems to depict religious folks with the same sort of contempt he spews on the "modern" "nihilist" folks like me.

So, what does he have in the way of hard evidence that there is something going on in the human brain that evolved from mindless matter into an "I" that is autonomous. How does he actually go about demonstrating it?

Instead, we get serial assertions such as this:

Every time I choose I do not assume there's another agency controlling me.
I, as ego, am lucid, feeling the body's determined impulses, but able to resist them, or redirect them.
Mind/Body conflict.
Body = determined past, manifesting as automated reactions, and judgements.
Mind = willing, manifesting as relationally based choices and judgements.


And:

Mind can resist and reject the body's impulses, based on the situation - shifting circumstances.
The same impulse may have positive or negative consequences, depending on fluctuating external dynamics.
The mind evolved to take into consideration environmental shifts, producing changing circumstances.
The body cannot. It's judgements and reactions are automatic.


I challenge you or Wendy or anyone else here who generally subscribes to his view on free will, to note how these "intellectual contraption" assessments in any way, shape or form constitute an actual demonstration of the objective truth about human autonomy.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31555
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jul 23, 2019 8:43 pm

phyllo wrote:I'm looking for the Enchanted Castle and I come to a crossroad. I can go left, straight, right or I can go back the way I came. (I could also wait, in case someone who knows the way comes along to help me. I could go off the path, cross-country.)

How does "the psychological illusion of freedom" work in this case?


I don't know how many different times I have already acknowleged I don't have an answer to questions like these. Let alone being able to demonstrate that my answer reflects that which all rational men and women are obligated to embrace.

Instead, I note that "I" -- "I" as an existential contraption -- have come to believe "here and now" that if the human brain has evolved from matter wholly in sync with the laws of nature, then the human brain itself would seem to be wholly in sync with them as well.

Which means that human psychology would be no exception. It is somehow able to create mental states in which the self-conscious "I" is, in turn, able to convince itself it is not wholly in sync with the laws of nature. That -- through God or through something entirely unique about living matter having evolved into the human brain -- "I" is able to choose freely.

Just as in a dream state, "I" is convinced it is calling all the shots when in fact it is the brain itself that is creating its "reality".

How then to explain the difference between a dream reality and a waking reality?

Again, I don't know. All I can presume is that there are men and women -- scientists -- who are exploring all of this much less "speculatively".
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31555
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby phyllo » Wed Jul 24, 2019 12:48 pm

If you don't like the switch to Trump, choose any context that you wish.
I'm going to select my "Road to the Enchanted Caste" context, because it's simple and it shows what I'm trying to say.
And "free" is meant to suggest that, in a determined world, it reflects only the psychological illusion of freedom. Whereas free is meant to convey an actual freedom embodied in the brains of matter that evolved into life that evolved into "I".



phyllo wrote:
I don't know how "the psychological illusion of freedom" works in practical terms. Nor do I know how "an actual freedom embodied in brains of matter" works in practical terms. You seem to think that they are very different.



But that is precisely my point!
No. If you thought that they were essentially the same then you would simply adopt the most useful one, you would not hesitate to switch when circumstances changed and you would not be concerned about others adopting a different one. Yet, these things appear to bother you. They are part of the reason for your "fractured I".
Therefore, I come to the conclusion that you think that those two ideas about freedom are different in some critical way.
Now, if they seem "functionally equivalent" to you, then note actual functions from your life in which you describe the choices that you make as being autonomous and not compelled by nature.
I'm autonomous in all my decisions. Nature is not some sort of external controller which can take away my autonomy. I am part of nature and separate from nature. My sensory input comes entirely from nature and my processing is entirely the product of nature.
How can you or I or anyone grasp this wholly? Given the reasons that I note above.
One can grasp it adequately if not wholly.
Yes, but you've got your own rendition of God. That allows you to put nature in perspective.
I didn't mention God in any of this. You can put nature in perspective without God.
But Satyr eschews God. He seems to depict religious folks with the same sort of contempt he spews on the "modern" "nihilist" folks like me.
He has contempt for the religious who are obsessed with an afterlife. They are nihilistic in the sense that they deny this life in favor of an afterlife.
On second thought, one could extend it those religious who are more concerned about the will of God than their own will. That could also be considered nihilistic.
Last edited by phyllo on Wed Jul 24, 2019 1:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11235
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Determinism

Postby surreptitious75 » Wed Jul 24, 2019 1:10 pm

iambiguous wrote:
surreptitious75 wrote:
Stating an obvious truth is not an assertion - namely that you cannot apply an objective metric to the human condition
Because there are no objectively true answers to the question of our existence or of how we should live our lives
If you disagree then say what are the objectively true answers to them - ones that can actually be demonstrated

As for myself my point could not be clearer : I have no capacity to provide objective answers to questions like these

Instead I assume that the answers that anyone gives to these questions [ or answers revolving around conflicted value judgments ] are rooted subjectively in the
fact that day in and day out we encounter new experiences new relationships and access to new information / knowledge / ideas etc that we can never be sure
wont change our minds

The point is that they can only be rooted subjectively because the question of how to live ones life is a subjective one and absolutely so as well
You have no capacity to provide objective answers because none exist and any declaration of supposed objectivity will by default be subjective
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby phyllo » Wed Jul 24, 2019 1:30 pm

You presume [I presume] that mindless matter evolving into living matter evolving into human brains evolving into "I" are not wholly the embodiment of the mechanical laws of nature.
Nope. I'm entirely the embodiment of the mechanical laws of nature. The only difference between me and a robot constructed in a factory and programmed, is that I'm aware of my own self.
Somehow God intercedes to make you autonomous.
Nope. Although He has loaded me(and humans and animals in general) with some pretty impressive programming and hardware.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11235
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Determinism

Postby surreptitious75 » Wed Jul 24, 2019 2:48 pm

iambiguous wrote:
You presume that mindless matter evolving into living matter evolving into human brains evolving into I are not wholly the embodiment of the mechanical laws of nature

Everything is the embodiment of nature because that is all there is . Evolution is an ongoing process and so mindless matter evolving into living matter and so on is simply evolution going from the simple to the complex - there is no mystery to this because it is what nature does . And when evolution finishes then entropy takes over for they are the two eternal states . A mind not understanding the more complex aspect of this process - such as free will for example - is an entirely separate matter . Nature simply does - it does not have to explain itself - that is not its function
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Jul 25, 2019 6:34 am

phyllo wrote:
But Satyr eschews God. He seems to depict religious folks with the same sort of contempt he spews on the "modern" "nihilist" folks like me.
He has contempt for the religious who are obsessed with an afterlife. They are nihilistic in the sense that they deny this life in favor of an afterlife.
On second thought, one could extend it those religious who are more concerned about the will of God than their own will. That could also be considered nihilistic.
You have religious people asking one to deny parts of one's nature, even to go against one's nature as a rule, (Satyr does this also but from a classical perspective rather than an Abrahamist one, but he doesn't acknowledge this) and then also deny the importance of what is happening here and now. To disengage. Then you have nihilists who think life has no meaning and bemoan this as if this entails that one should disengage from life. Or in Iamb's case that one must either find the meanings or have other people demonstrate them or remain disengaged. Now of course he would not say we should disengage, but it is part of the bemoaning, it is implicit in the nihilism. The 'what could be more important' implies it. I think that is unhealthy. IOW if it happened to a wolf of a cow - and thus the arguments would be out of sight and not articulatable by the animal - it would just look like a sick animal. Depressed, perhaps suffering some kind of virus.

If one decides it is more important to do some creative project or explore intimacy with someone, then this is seen as signs of existential contraptions or objectivism or a new should.

When it is merely not being stopped by meme that inhibits life.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]